De Ja Vu

D

DE Wrangler 2

Guest
1968 all over again.:(


AP World Politics

Crow preaches peace, Osbournes poke fun at ex-couple Britney and Justin
Tue Jan 14, 1:27 AM ET

By BETH HARRIS, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - Sheryl Crow, an activist for recording artists' rights, brought her own message against a possible war with Iraq to Monday night's American Music Awards.



Crow accepted her award for pop-rock female artist wearing a white T-shirt emblazoned with the message "war is not the answer" in black sequins. She had the V-neck shirt specially made.


"I just think there's a really vital, sweeping peace movement out there that's not getting covered in the press, so I just kind of try to do my part," she said backstage.


"I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."
 
DE, I avoided that show on purpose!

I don't want war any more than the rest of us do, but if it needs to be done, let's do it right this time. No more "conflicts" or "incursions". BLAST SADDAM'S ASS OFF THE PLANET!

I kinda like Cheryl's music from time to time, but an awards show is no time to act like Jane Fonda or Joan Baez.
 
Remember Marky Mark during Desert Storm...War Sucks! These people march to the beat of the same drum. I really think that most of them don't have any ideas of their own.
 
Originally posted by DE Wrangler 2
"I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."
Click to expand...


This is the de ja vu part.:(


Next will come the "massive" demonstrations like we had here in Los Angeles over the weekend. And what a ridiculous statement that last sentence is.
 
If she can figure out a way to "not have enemies" I might give her a second thought. But since that is just another misguided liberal pipe dream I think the rest of her statements are given the same amount of weight.
 
If memory serves me right, Vanessa Redgrave was not a citizen of this country.
 
Originally posted by DE Wrangler 2
If memory serves me right, Vanessa Redgrave was not a citizen of this country.
Click to expand...


nope..she wasn't.......
 
I don't agree with her at all, but she has a right to her opinion.

What gets me going is when people don't support the troups fighting the war. You can be against a war and still support them. Hopwfully she'll fall into this category.
 
It must be nice to live in such a deluded world. These people have created a world in their minds where if you simply don't start any trouble, none will come your way. It would be nice I guess. Living in the real world means you have to make choices to respond to what is really happening out there.
 
mngopherguy is right. I don't see anyone spitting on troops or anything like that, so I don't see the comparision to the Nam era.

For the sake of argument...

I see a lot people just coughing it all up to being a "liberal" and "living in a dream world".

I know a few hard-nosed conservatives that feel that this war isn't necessary.

What I happen to find more out of touch with reality are people that lump everyone into this "liberal" category, that everyone else must be out of their mind to think differently then them.

Let's get some discussion going instead of taking the easy way out and simply saying people that are opposed to this war are "liberal whackos".
 
Thanks, Paul. I do not consider myself a "liberal whacko" as you put it, and I am NOT in favor of ANY war no matter who it is with. I have never felt that war was an answer to ANYTHING, but it happens. I support our troops along with those who are our allies. Just because I don't think that war is the answer, does not in ANY way say that I don't support our troops.

Let's look at this scenario:
Bush sends 350,000 troops overseas to "fight" in a war with Iraq. Who is left here in the USA to defend those of us still here?

I have a hard time accepting Bush's reasoning that Iraq HAS to have Biological Weapons. NONE have been found as of yet. I understand that Iraq has had them in the past, but where did they go? How could they have sanitized the country so well after knowingly possessing such a thing. The UN Weapons inspectors have found NOTHING! Would someone with more knowledge PLEASE enlighten me!
 
Its definitely not just the liberals opposed to the war. Sounds like Blair and a few more of our Allies are starting to question it.

Believe me, I'm all for Hussein dying really slowly and his body pieces being fed to the rats. But Bush is going to have to show his hand soon. Its really starting to look like a personal problem that he has with Hussien. And if we just invade for sake of invading, I think we're gonna cause a lot of unnessecary problems for the USA.

Let things die down for a while, bring the troops back and let Saddam wake up dead one morning with a bullet in his brain. It would be a lot cheaper that way...

But, with as many troops that are floating around the Gulf and the amount that is one that way, its gonna be soon. You can't have that many Marines confined in one area that long. (DE can attest to that!;) )

I think Bush has just gone on and on about so much that he can't back down now, maybe he's afraid to lose face. But he needs to act soon one way or the other....either throw the cards on the table or bring the boats back home.
 
Originally posted by majestyx

Let's look at this scenario:
Bush sends 350,000 troops overseas to "fight" in a war with Iraq.  Who is left here in the USA to defend those of us still here?  
Click to expand...


That's a very good point. We need to start worrying about Kim Jong II. I'm thinking he ain't the most sane person running a county...
 
Fergy is right on most accounts. However, I'm more inclined to think there is intelligence that Hussein does still possess and still develops WMD"s. Other than that, I agrees whole heartedly.

Now to the intent of my posting this thread. I'm very much aware of the fact that Crow (Streisand, Penn, Baldwin, and others) have every right to their opinions. Yes, their opinions are worth every bit as much as mine (or yours). But, why bring that message to an award ceremony? What kind of outrage would ensue if some actor, singer or celebrity came to the stage with a tee shirt proclaiming "Annihilate Saddam"? That person (in my opinion) would ridiculed and condemned to oblivion. Plus, I was around when the demonstrations against Viet Nam first started........it started just like this. Slowly, quietly but escalated to massive demonstrations which eventually led to hatred between the two extremes. There already was a rather large demonstration here last weekend......another scheduled for San Francisco next weekend. It looks like sides are being taken already........and NO ONE knows all the facts yet.:( And, no, no one has been spit on.......YET! If it gets to that point again, I'll come unglued..........I was personally spit upon and no one deserves that to happen to them ever again.
 
Maybe it escalated because people were called "un American" or "whackos" because they didn't support a war.

You hit upon it, "No one knows the facts yet". Yet here were are, loading up boats with troops and sending them over. Even Blix is begging for some proof, our allies are begging for some proof, now some Americans are begging for some proof.

It has nothing to do with spitting on troops. It has nothing to do with being un American.

It has everything to do with wondering what we're going over there for.

So many people are willing to tow the line and say, "Bush must know something". Guess what, when it comes to WWIII and you would rather a leader keep things from us as opposed to laying his cards on the table, which he is required to do mind you, then I question our society.

Personally, I think Bush has taken this too far. There is no proof, and I as an American demand to see proof. I'm not content in lying down and watching my country start a world war over a personal grudge. All people ask for is proof, and Bush's inability to show it is a slap in the face of the American people and the troops he's sending over there.

Some stupid rock star wearing a T-shirt expressing an opinion that many people are afraid to say because of the backlash of being insulted and have their loyalty to the country questioned means nothing.

Her shirt is an opinion, not a mouthful of spit. The mouthful of spit ready to be spat on the troops is Bush's brazen aggresion against a country that has done everything we have asked of them.

The disrespect to our troops is coming from Bush, using troops as a pawn in his game with Hussein. That's what I find insulting. I'll worry about that, you can worry about Crow and her T-shirt.
 
Originally posted by DE Wrangler 2
Fergy is right on most accounts.  However, I'm more inclined to think there is intelligence that Hussein does still possess and still develops WMD"s.  Other than that, I agrees whole heartedly.
Click to expand...

DE, while I don't completely disagree with you here, I do disagree with the simple reason that none have been FOUND. There may be intelligence that says he still possesses and develops WMD's, but there has been NO concrete PROOF as of yet. I dislike Hussein as much as the next person, but you have to have proof that these are in "his" possession.
 
OK, Paul. You made your point, I made mine. And quote me where I said anything about liberal whackos. You fear WWIII (I'm not too thrilled about that possibility either). I also fear the divisiveness of the 60's and 70's. I read that article and had a big deja vu event.....mostly from what she said (not the tee shirt). Pretty words that show ignorance of how the world is.
 
Originally posted by majestyx
DE, while I don't completely disagree with you here, I do disagree with the simple reason that none have been FOUND.  There may be intelligence that says he still possesses and develops WMD's, but there has been NO concrete PROOF as of yet.  I dislike Hussein as much as the next person, but you have to have proof that these are in "his" possession.
Click to expand...


Most intelligence of the nature that we are talking about is classified. Classified intelligence is not released to the public. At some point, you have to trust your government. Believe me, if it ever turns out that Bush is, in fact, acting out of revenge or anything, I'll turn on him in an instant. There's no concrete proof that Saddam has WMD's........but plenty of proof that he has lied and deceived in the past. He's had over 4 years to hide whatever he had prior to 1998. He's yet to produce any concrete proof that he destroyed what he had........he's been given every opportunity to do so. The inspectors admit that they have no proof he has WMD's..........they also have proof he hasn't accounted for them. Now, for Bush acting out of revenge..........there's no proof of that. Pure speculation. Who are you inclined to believe? Bush or Hussein?
 
Who says anyone is "believing Hussein"?

All we're asking for is proof. Specualtion is saying, "There must be some classified info we're not getting" That is what specualtion is.
 
Originally posted by paul
Who says anyone is "believing Hussein"?

All we're asking for is proof.  Specualtion is saying, "There must be some classified info we're not getting"  That is what specualtion is.
Click to expand...


That is not speculation. That has been stated by the administration. I guess I choose to believe it since it is not speculation. I could be a lie.........sure. But, there is no proof that it is. Until something comes along that proves otherwise, I'm going to believe the man with the record of fewer lies. I get the impression that you think I blindly follow my "leaders"......not true.:)
 
My 2 cents worth.

Point A: While it may be true that we, the American citizens, don't "know the facts", that in no way means that the people we the American citizens elected to lead us do not know them. Be honest, do you really think the citizens should be given every fact? Trust your leaders, do something to remove them, or replace them yourself.

Point B: Sheryl Crow's opinion on anything will have zero effect on my opinions. Same as any celebrity. They crap between their Nikes same as I do. The fact that she's a babe and can sing like nobody's business does not qualify her as an expert on foreign policy.

Point C: I boycotted all awards shows the night Jethro Tull beat Metallica for a Grammy. Haven't watched one since.

Point D: Sheryl Crow makes me have naughty thoughts. :D Just thought I'd mention that...
 
No, I don't.

I believe what I see, before believing what I hear from some politician.

Just because Bush says it, doesn't mean it's true.

And what I see doesn't look too good.
 
Oh, almost forgot Point E...

I support Bush, but IMO the optimum time to move has passed. He waited too long. Now it's a harder sell for the rest of the world.
 
That's my point too, I'm just wordier about it. :)

If he wants to keep it secret why he wants to start WWIII, I won't support it.

If you're willing to just accept the fact that he "knows all this secret stuff" and march into war with him...then I'm afraid to say that is blindly following the leader. I'm not sure what else that can be...:(
 
Originally posted by TN-Ward-Fan
Oh, almost forgot Point E...

I support Bush, but IMO the optimum time to move has passed.  He waited too long.  Now it's a harder sell for the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the truest statement so far in this thread. But, why did that happen? My opinion is that it was the "proof" everyone is clamoring for.
 
So Iraq will be the start of WWIII..........a possibility, I guess. Somehow, I don't think so though. China would have to get involved......I doubt that would happen. North Korea is a better bet if you thinking WWIII.......and Bush is NOT contemplating military action there.
 
Caveat...

And I'm pretty sure that's what people like Crow are talking about. That the time has passed, war is no longer the answer in this situation.
 
Well, I guess there's black, white, and gray. I'm in the gray.

It's naive to believe that any leader is gonna sit us down and spell out everything he has, then say, "So, is it OK with YOU if we go annhialate this monster?" The president of this country does not owe us as citizens that. He is the president for a reason. I for one wouldn't want to wrestle with these decisions for two seconds. He wanted the job, he got the job, and he's doing the job. He does not need our approval, he does not need to apologize if he does something in what he feels is the best interest of the nation and it is unpopular, and he certainly doesn't need to wait until Dan Rather tells him it's OK.

On the flipside, we as voters DO indeed hold our leaders accountable...every four years. That is our opportunity to actively do something about where our nation is headed. In the interrim, it is my conviction that we owe our leaders our support. Face it, Hussein has the support of HIS country, by whatever means he got it. Castro is adored in Cuba and loathed worldwide. Only in America are we allowed to sit around and bitch about every move our leader makes. And he's doing his best to ensure that we may KEEP ON bitching about him and his decisions. It's called freedom. I kinda like it.

So if that's blind allegiance, indict me.
 
Originally posted by DE Wrangler 2
and Bush is NOT contemplating military action there.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm wondering about, remember my thread "Priorities"?

Why isn't he? Why is he putting us at risk, and pushing his pawns into Iraq? "Secret Info" he won't share with us? I hope not, I don't like that in a leader. And no, we shouldn't "know everything". But why we are going to war, when the rest of the entire planet is asking us the same question...needs to be answered.

IMO, it's a personal grudge against the nutball Hussein...

He doesn't need to explain why we should anihilate him, everyone already agrees that needs to be done. That can be done with a a few Ranger units in a day.

The point is that a war is not the answer here.
 
Aww, Paul...yer just sidin' with Sheryl cuz yer both Junior fans. :ROFLMFAO:
 
Originally posted by paul
That's it you're banned.
Click to expand...

:leap: :leap: :leap: WOOHOO! I finally figured out what it took to get banned! :p

Good discussion, though. Thought provoking.
 
Originally posted by paul
That's what I'm wondering about, remember my thread "Priorities"?

That can be done with a a few Ranger units in a day.

The point is that a war is not the answer here.
Click to expand...


I remember your thread about "Priorities". And the reason North Korea is being handled differently is because there is a pretty good case that it could escalate to something much larger than just a regional conflict. I think I said as much, though probably not in the same words.

Saying that a few Ranger units could take out Saddam Hussein in a day is a pretty naive statement........if that were the case, it would have been done a long time ago (probably by Israel instead of the US). Besides taking Hussein out is not going to fix the problem........it's the regime. War is the only effective way to take a regime out (assassination, would not do it anymore than sanctions). So your point that war is not the answer is more than just a little optimistic.

And, one more time: Iraq is a threat to this country as well to the world. So is North Korea. Different situations..........different methods of attacking the problem. Both will need to be addressed. Iraq is probably easiest and quickest and they were "first". Get that done and then work on the North Korean thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom